GUN CONTROL

[David88vert]

David, I said "most" so pointing out one person who wants to ban guns doesn't prove anything. Give me a list of senators/congressmen even half of what it takes to pass a bill and then I will agree you have cause for concern. Until then, it is pretty far from mainstream.

I gave you the links in post #111. It shows each Senator and Representatives positions on how they vote on gun issues.

Again:
Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America

There are 49 that are blatently anti-gun in the US Senate (out of 100), and over 150 in the US Representatives - is that enough for you? There are just the ones that actively vote for gun control, with many of them publically asking for a gun ban. Look at Massachusetts, California, and New York.

If you wait until they have enough votes to pass a bill, it will be too late, as it will be law, and then if you follow history, the government will make criminals out of normal citizens.

[Sinfix_15]

David, I said "most" so pointing out one person who wants to ban guns doesn't prove anything. Give me a list of senators/congressmen even half of what it takes to pass a bill and then I will agree you have cause for concern. Until then, it is pretty far from mainstream.



Then our representative democracy is a failed experiment since "we" elected those people.

Maybe so.

[bu villain]

I gave you the links in post #111. It shows each Senator and Representatives positions on how they vote on gun issues.

Again:
Senate - GOA Senate Ratings For The 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America
House - GOA House Ratings for the 112th Congress - Gun Owners Of America

There are 49 that are blatently anti-gun in the US Senate (out of 100), and over 150 in the US Representatives - is that enough for you? There are just the ones that actively vote for gun control, with many of them publically asking for a gun ban. Look at Massachusetts, California, and New York.

If you wait until they have enough votes to pass a bill, it will be too late, as it will be law, and then if you follow history, the government will make criminals out of normal citizens.

That link rates members based on how closely they vote with the positions of the GOA. It doesn't in any way mean they want to abolish guns. Take the vote on allowing guns in federal parks. It passed with about 70% of the votes. It's disingenuous to say that because someone thinks more gun regulation is needed or that they don't agree with the GOA that they are for banning all guns (ie. anti-gun). Further to say that any more regulation will innevitably lead to an outright ban is equally disingenuous.

[David88vert]

Go look up the Congressmen's websites individually then.

Ignore history and you can relive it.

[bu villain]

Go look up the Congressmen's websites individually then.

Ignore history and you can relive it.

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that our guns are in danger of being taken away and yet you want me to go look through 400+ congressmen's websites to verify your claim? I already stated that 70% of them recently voted for a relaxing of gun laws (you can verify on the same GOA site you refered too). How our representatives vote is the best indicator there is in my opinion and it shows that we are a very long way from an all out gun ban being a credible threat.

It's quite a leap to say that because guns have been taken away from people in other countries at other times in history, that such a threat is immenent here and now in this country. History is a tool to learn from, not something to be blindly paranoid about regardless of evidence.

[BanginJimmy]

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that our guns are in danger of being taken away and yet you want me to go look through 400+ congressmen's websites to verify your claim? I already stated that 70% of them recently voted for a relaxing of gun laws (you can verify on the same GOA site you refered too). How our representatives vote is the best indicator there is in my opinion and it shows that we are a very long way from an all out gun ban being a credible threat.

Take a look at the proposed UN small arms treaty. 51 senators from both parties signed a letter saying they would vote against a bill that could in any way infringe upto American's right to bear arms. Another 20+ said they needed more specific language about the ban before they would vote in favor of it.

Then again, if the treaty was signed by Clinton, Reid probably would have refused to introduce it. Just because it is a constitutional requirement doesnt mean he should have to subject his party to uncomfortable votes.

It's quite a leap to say that because guns have been taken away from people in other countries at other times in history, that such a threat is immenent here and now in this country. History is a tool to learn from, not something to be blindly paranoid about regardless of evidence.

The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

[David88vert]

You're the one making the extraordinary claim that our guns are in danger of being taken away and yet you want me to go look through 400+ congressmen's websites to verify your claim? I already stated that 70% of them recently voted for a relaxing of gun laws (you can verify on the same GOA site you refered too). How our representatives vote is the best indicator there is in my opinion and it shows that we are a very long way from an all out gun ban being a credible threat.

It's quite a leap to say that because guns have been taken away from people in other countries at other times in history, that such a threat is immenent here and now in this country. History is a tool to learn from, not something to be blindly paranoid about regardless of evidence.

I've given you specific senators who have stated that they want to ban guns. You ignore this repeatedly.
I gave you a link to all of the ratings on Congress that is based on their stated positions and their voting records. ALL of those F- ratngs are Congress men who want to ban guns. That's a lot of people who choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment. Only 130 Republican Representatives signed the letter to Obama recently. SOS Clinton has pushed for the UN treaty, and it is clear that Obama's administration is trying to find a loophole to bring about a ban.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes

[David88vert]

The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

It's different if it's from him. Rules are only for others.

[bu villain]

Take a look at the proposed UN small arms treaty. 51 senators from both parties signed a letter saying they would vote against a bill that could in any way infringe upto American's right to bear arms. Another 20+ said they needed more specific language about the ban before they would vote in favor of it.

I would have to see exactly what the treaty said. Can you link to it. If it says they want to ban assault rifles then that wouldn't surprise me but a ban on assault weapons is not even close to an all out gun ban.

The same thinking is true for those that like to bring up the stats of another country when it comes to gun deaths. Just because Japan bans all guns and they have a very low gun death rate doesnt mean the same would be true here.

Despite what David seems to think, I agree that low gun deaths in other countries doesn't prove the same would be true here. That was never my argument though. My only argument is that gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban and I don't think we are in any danger of having a complete gun ban in this country anytime soon.

[David88vert]

I would have to see exactly what the treaty said. Can you link to it. If it says they want to ban assault rifles then that wouldn't surprise me but a ban on assault weapons is not even close to an all out gun ban.



Despite what David seems to think, I agree that low gun deaths in other countries doesn't prove the same would be true here. That was never my argument though. My only argument is that gun regulation is not the same thing as a gun ban and I don't think we are in any danger of having a complete gun ban in this country anytime soon.

I posted a link to a lot of the information on it earlier, but the full document of the treaty proposal has not been released to the public, only some key pieces have been released.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by our Senate, it will almost certainly force the U.S. to:
1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Go to the dedicated UN disarmament site for more: United Nations Disarmament ...strengthening peace and security through disarmament
You can read the 18 page report from the Secretary with all 5 recomendations online in PDF.

[bu villain]

I've given you specific senators who have stated that they want to ban guns. You ignore this repeatedly.
I gave you a link to all of the ratings on Congress that is based on their stated positions and their voting records. ALL of those F- ratngs are Congress men who want to ban guns. That's a lot of people who choose to ignore the 2nd Amendment. Only 130 Republican Representatives signed the letter to Obama recently. SOS Clinton has pushed for the UN treaty, and it is clear that Obama's administration is trying to find a loophole to bring about a ban.
The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: Are Our 2nd Amendment Rights Part Of The Deal? - Forbes

You listed a few senators who would like a gun ban. I read the GOA site and it doesn't say that those with F- say they want a complete gun ban. If you could direct me to where it says F- means they want to ban ALL guns then I will go look again.

As far as the article is concerned, the UN states "The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons". I didn't see anything but speculation about what the president's intentions might be and how he could try to circumvent the fact that international treaties are approved by congress. The article was thoroughly unconvincing and I am all for people owning guns.

[bu villain]

1.Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
2.Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).
3.Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

Not saying I agree with all those measures but still a far cry from a all out gun ban.

4.Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

Does car registration set the stage for full-scale car confiscation?

5.In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

If we agree to it, then it's not overriding our national sovreignity. It's simply voting and saying we agree to this as a nation. No one is forcing us to sign it if we don't want to. Just as the president issues an executive order to say the constitution is null and void, neither can he override the constitution by signing a treaty either.

I agree their are legitimate concerns about gun control but when every debate is framed as a fight against all out gun bans, I think a lot of credibility is lost.

[Sinfix_15]

So, sitting in the break room today, a pretty fired up older black gentleman who was watching the news said...............

and i quote..................

" If they would ban guns their would be no crime "

[David88vert]

You listed a few senators who would like a gun ban. I read the GOA site and it doesn't say that those with F- say they want a complete gun ban. If you could direct me to where it says F- means they want to ban ALL guns then I will go look again.

As far as the article is concerned, the UN states "The outcome will not seek to prohibit citizens of any country from possessing firearms or to interfere with the legal trade in small arms and light weapons". I didn't see anything but speculation about what the president's intentions might be and how he could try to circumvent the fact that international treaties are approved by congress. The article was thoroughly unconvincing and I am all for people owning guns.

Not saying I agree with all those measures but still a far cry from a all out gun ban.



Does car registration set the stage for full-scale car confiscation?



If we agree to it, then it's not overriding our national sovreignity. It's simply voting and saying we agree to this as a nation. No one is forcing us to sign it if we don't want to. Just as the president issues an executive order to say the constitution is null and void, neither can he override the constitution by signing a treaty either.

I agree their are legitimate concerns about gun control but when every debate is framed as a fight against all out gun bans, I think a lot of credibility is lost.

Read up on it. Many legal experts have stated the same list that I just gave you - I copied one of their notes and put it above. It's not something that I made up.

I agree that the Constitution overrides all treaties. Case law specifically supports that. And of course the President is not able to authorize a treaty without Congress. We have those checks and balances in place. What you can see though is the gradual placement of a plan to enact registration, then confiscation - just like several other countries have done within the last century. If you ignore it now, it will be too late to do anything later.
The only thing registration can do is give the government a list of legal arms - criminals will not register their guns. That is fact.

Now, the update - Previously, Obama and Hillary have stated that they were going to push hard to get Congress to ratify this treaty, and many of the UN members have stated that they are looking to ban all privately controlled small arms. The UN conference is over for 2012 (just ended), and just one week after the Aurora massacre, Obama has suddenly changed tune, and said the "US needed more time to review the treaty." This has effectively killed the UN treaty - for now. Basically, Aurora pushed gun control to the headlines, and Obama knew that he couldn't fly it under the radar. In a election year, it would have been a potential controversy that could have eventually sank his re-election campaign, so hence, the about-face.

[David88vert]

So, sitting in the break room today, a pretty fired up older black gentleman who was watching the news said...............

and i quote..................

" If they would ban guns their would be no crime "

You should have said, "There was no crime before guns were invented?"

[.blank cd]

The only thing registration can do is give the government a list of legal arms - criminals will not register their guns. That is fact.

The Auroura theater shooting suspect James Holmes purchased all of his weapons through legal channels. All of his guns were registered. SOME criminals won't register there guns.

[David88vert]

The Auroura theater shooting suspect James Holmes purchased all of his weapons through legal channels. All of his guns were registered. SOME criminals won't register there guns.

Really? You think that some criminals WILL come in and register their firearms? Maybe a few stupid ones will, as there are some retards out there, but the vast majority won't.

How would a national gun registration prevented Auroura? If you took away his guns, he would have just blown up the theatre. It wouldn't have stopped it. We will always have senseless killings like this with us. The problem is the person commiting the atrocity. It's not the weapon used. Go after the source, which is to identify the threat as soon as possible. Show how registration will help identify the threat - no one has been able to define that yet.

[Sinfix_15]

You should have said, "There was no crime before guns were invented?"

I've stopped bothering. I just assume every black person is a mindless far left sheep at this point. Which is 97% correct......... based on the polls.

[.blank cd]

Really? You think that some criminals WILL come in and register their firearms? Maybe a few stupid ones will, as there are some retards out there, but the vast majority won't.

You have some data on this? Or am I correct in assuming you pulled this vast majority figure out of your ass?

[Vteckidd]

The Auroura theater shooting suspect James Holmes purchased all of his weapons through legal channels. All of his guns were registered. SOME criminals won't register there guns.

They dont get it. Again, i find the opposition just flat out funny.

NEW FIREARM PURCHASE RULES- Register serial number through licensed FFL= Perfectly ok
USED FIREARM PURCHASES- No laws or regulations or requirements= OK

Asking all firearms to be treated the same = YOURE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS! YOU ARE INFRINGING UPON MY RIGHTS! GOVERNMENT WILL COME TAKE MY ARMS!

its stupid, its dumb, its absolute bullshit, itll never happen. I dont know how a group can rationalize the standards for 1 instance, but then act like that same requirement is some big brother gun grab that violates the founding fathers wishes.

No one is saying people cant own firearms, or cant purchase guns. But streamlining ownership records so LEO doesnt waste time tracking down 3-4 owners down the road is worth it in the end.

Let me ask you guys this. What if James Holmes had bought his guns used, legally. what if he was 3-4 people down the road? What if he didnt give up? LEO would be chasing down 3-4-5 people to get to the current owner. Isnt that a waste of resources? Tax payer money ?

Having a singular standard is responsible, its not infringing upon anything because all people still have the right to own their gun

[Vteckidd]

Really? You think that some criminals WILL come in and register their firearms? Maybe a few stupid ones will, as there are some retards out there, but the vast majority won't.

History proves you wrong, the last 4 largest massacres were LEGAL registered weapons. So yes, criminals do register guns.

How would a national gun registration prevented Auroura? I

dumb argument is dumb. I have NEVER SAID it would have prevented someone from killing someone. On the contrary, ive said it would most certainly NOT have prevented Aurora. The fact that you and everyone else keeps double talking and bringing this up like gun control=crimes abolished is just flat out skewing and manipulating words.

no one has said that Gun Registration= problem solved, with all due respect, stop saying that. its a lie.

All im saying is that bad guys exploit weaknesses, there is a huge weakness in the used gun market. We should close it. Will it prevent gun massacres? NOPE. Will it shrink a pool of resources without infringing anyones rights? YES.

Sticking our head in the sand and acting like the status quo is good enough is irrational.

[.blank cd]

They dont get it. Again, i find the opposition just flat out funny.

I'm just gonna face facts man, anyone who is inclined to think a couple extra regulations equates to government removal of arms and nullification of the 2nd amendment probably should have their gun removed.

I fully agree with treating used guns the same as new ones, just like all cars are treated the same with respect to registration. I'd even go one step further to include some kind of criminal liability for NOT filing said form, especially if something seriously criminal happened with said gun. Like if I sold you a gun without either of us filing the paperwork, and you go mow down a movie theater, I could be held partially responsible. That would at least discourage some people from buying and some from selling if they know it can be traced back to them.

[Vteckidd]

at the very least it would prompt citizens to be more RESPONSIBLE about who they sell to, and about what they are selling. It would also shift the responsibility to the licensed FFL dealers, which should be handling all firearm transactions anyway.

FUN FACT:
Adventure Outdoors takes trade ins of used guns. They then resell those used guns. When you buy a used gun from AO, you must fill out 4473 and a background check same as buying a NEW gun. are you guys against that business practice?

[.blank cd]

ADVENTURE OUTDOORS IS A LIBREL SHIL ATTEMPTING TO SHIT ON THE CONSTITUTION. OBAMA.

[bu villain]

Read up on it. Many legal experts have stated the same list that I just gave you - I copied one of their notes and put it above. It's not something that I made up.

I have tried to find a comprehensive list of those who want to ban guns but have been unable to find such a list. Since I don't have time to go to every individual website, do you know of a such a list? Also, could you please explain why 70% of congress and the President voted to allow guns in federal parks if so many of them are completely against all guns?

I agree that the Constitution overrides all treaties. Case law specifically supports that. And of course the President is not able to authorize a treaty without Congress. We have those checks and balances in place....

Then why are you so worried if the president wants to ban guns or not? It could be his number one priority but the president doesn't have the power to do it without congress anyway.

[Sinfix_15]

Politicians want to get rid of guns, not just lower crime rate. The agenda of some is strictly that they want to get rid of guns and they use a tragedy like this to support their agenda. Gun owners have a right to be defensive on this issue, we recognize the campaign against guns.

[David88vert]

You have some data on this? Or am I correct in assuming you pulled this vast majority figure out of your ass?

Yes. Look at NYC and DC gun crime stats. The majority of guns currently used in the commision of crimes are not registered to the criminal. Bloomberg, who wants to ban all guns, can supply you the latest NYC figures, as they change daily. It's the same across the country.

[David88vert]

They dont get it. Again, i find the opposition just flat out funny.

NEW FIREARM PURCHASE RULES- Register serial number through licensed FFL= Perfectly ok
USED FIREARM PURCHASES- No laws or regulations or requirements= OK

Asking all firearms to be treated the same = YOURE TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS! YOU ARE INFRINGING UPON MY RIGHTS! GOVERNMENT WILL COME TAKE MY ARMS!

its stupid, its dumb, its absolute bullshit, itll never happen. I dont know how a group can rationalize the standards for 1 instance, but then act like that same requirement is some big brother gun grab that violates the founding fathers wishes.

No one is saying people cant own firearms, or cant purchase guns. But streamlining ownership records so LEO doesnt waste time tracking down 3-4 owners down the road is worth it in the end.

Let me ask you guys this. What if James Holmes had bought his guns used, legally. what if he was 3-4 people down the road? What if he didnt give up? LEO would be chasing down 3-4-5 people to get to the current owner. Isnt that a waste of resources? Tax payer money ?

Having a singular standard is responsible, its not infringing upon anything because all people still have the right to own their gun

Mike, it is a valid argument. I just don't like the end result of giving the government a list of firearms. No good has ever come of it before, so why would this be different?

[David88vert]

History proves you wrong, the last 4 largest massacres were LEGAL registered weapons. So yes, criminals do register guns.


dumb argument is dumb. I have NEVER SAID it would have prevented someone from killing someone. On the contrary, ive said it would most certainly NOT have prevented Aurora. The fact that you and everyone else keeps double talking and bringing this up like gun control=crimes abolished is just flat out skewing and manipulating words.

no one has said that Gun Registration= problem solved, with all due respect, stop saying that. its a lie.

All im saying is that bad guys exploit weaknesses, there is a huge weakness in the used gun market. We should close it. Will it prevent gun massacres? NOPE. Will it shrink a pool of resources without infringing anyones rights? YES.

Sticking our head in the sand and acting like the status quo is good enough is irrational.

Actually, they were legal citizens before they purchased. They were not criminals. This is not Minority Report. We do not have a way to see the future, so it is likely that all of these killings would have still happened.

So, we have a known problem, but our actions won't result in a solution. That is irrational.

IE - We have a hole in the dam leaking water. Let's make a list of all of the lightbulbs in the building...

[David88vert]

I'm just gonna face facts man, anyone who is inclined to think a couple extra regulations equates to government removal of arms and nullification of the 2nd amendment probably should have their gun removed.

I fully agree with treating used guns the same as new ones, just like all cars are treated the same with respect to registration. I'd even go one step further to include some kind of criminal liability for NOT filing said form, especially if something seriously criminal happened with said gun. Like if I sold you a gun without either of us filing the paperwork, and you go mow down a movie theater, I could be held partially responsible. That would at least discourage some people from buying and some from selling if they know it can be traced back to them.

That's a given. The government would have to have some sort of penalty for non-compliance. Otherwise, what would be the point of stating a new law?

[David88vert]

I have tried to find a comprehensive list of those who want to ban guns but have been unable to find such a list. Since I don't have time to go to every individual website, do you know of a such a list? Also, could you please explain why 70% of congress and the President voted to allow guns in federal parks if so many of them are completely against all guns?



Then why are you so worried if the president wants to ban guns or not? It could be his number one priority but the president doesn't have the power to do it without congress anyway.

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

[Vteckidd]

Actually, they were legal citizens before they purchased. They were not criminals. This is not Minority Report. We do not have a way to see the future, so it is likely that all of these killings would have still happened.

So, we have a known problem, but our actions won't result in a solution. That is irrational.

IE - We have a hole in the dam leaking water. Let's make a list of all of the lightbulbs in the building...

the whole point of this thread isnt to stop gun massacres, its to close LOOP HOLES IN THE SECURITY OF SELLING USED FIREARMS.

Or we can wait for straw purchases to start showing up in gun massacres and THEN we can talk about it :P

[Vteckidd]

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

well Rahm Emmanuel in 2008 said that only the military should own weapons not private citizens. I cant find a clip of the video but i have seen it. He was the CHief of Staff (or on his way) at that point. Thats pretty high up.

I would say theres a small small group of people devoted to banning firearms outright, but a larger minority supports heavy regulation on them as a means to banning. But the overwhelming majority is against it at this point.

if it was REALLY on the Dems agenda they had 2 years to do it and didnt even take up legislation on gun control.

If you have a problem with national registry on firearms, i assume you dont buy any weapons anymore, becuase all new weapons are serialized. Eventually all weapons will belong to the master registry. I mean techincally any weapon kinda is on a master list because the way it works is

Manufacturer makes gun, issues serial number
Must keep records of all serial numbers and weapons issued for ATF
Guns are sold via Serial number to Dealer
Dealer has to keep records for (I THINK) up to 10 years.
ATF audits every 3-5 years


So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.

[Sinfix_15]

the whole point of this thread isnt to stop gun massacres, its to close LOOP HOLES IN THE SECURITY OF SELLING USED FIREARMS.

Or we can wait for straw purchases to start showing up in gun massacres and THEN we can talk about it :P

You cant prevent crazy people from doing crazy things. Increased gun registration will not effect crime in any way shape or form. The left wants to get rid of guns. They wanted to get rid of guns before any of these shootings took place. They dont want to lower crime, they want to get rid of guns. Maybe in their mind they think getting rid of guns will lower crime, but at some point that idea shifted from lowering crime to specifically getting rid of guns. I've been watching the news all week listening to people talk about getting rid of guns, not lowering crime.

To me, this is a very scary thought. Because i will only give up my gun.... at gun point.

[bu villain]

You have to look at voting records. No single bill has called for a complete ban on all firearms yet, so you cannot just go to one single bill to review.

True it is not direct proof but really, why would they vote to loosen gun restrictions if there goal was the extreme opposite?

Congress is easily influenced by backroom deals. If the President wants something, he finds what deals he needs to make. It's politics.

Of course he can try but he can only go so far. I don't think there is any chance he could make enough deals to ban guns no matter how hard he tried.

[bu villain]

To me, this is a very scary thought. Because i will only give up my gun.... at gun point.

What if the second amendment was repealed? Do you think your right to own a gun is a god given right or a constitutional right?

[BanginJimmy]

So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.

Simple concepts seem to be the hardest for people to figure out. Some people just cant grasp the idea that a paper trail with the private transfer of a firearm protects both the seller and buyer.

[Sinfix_15]

What if the second amendment was repealed? Do you think your right to own a gun is a god given right or a constitutional right?

I dont believe in God, but i feel we all have the fundamental right to defend ourselves. i shouldnt have to rely on someone else to protect me. Nobody can give me my life back if someone takes it from me, therefor nobody should make a decision for me based on my safety.

I was watching Piers Morgan the other night and realized just how out of touch with society he and the rest of the media are. He said, in response to a question about gun ownership preventing home invasions " so we should just give everyone and gun and let them kill anyone who tries to burglarize their house ".....

and i thought........ yes... absolutely.................................

If someone breaks into my home while im here, they will be killed. They deserve to be killed. Every time some idiot does something stupid with a gun the media has a fire storm and starts up about gun control. Why dont they report about the 8,000 home invasions that happen a day in the united states or that 1 in 5 homes will experience a burglary based on statistics. The police presence is not enough and never will be enough to be at every place all the time. People have the fundamental right to defend themselves. 60% of all rapes happen during home invasion. In my own personal experience, me owning a gun prevented my fiance from being raped and/or murdered by an attempted home invasion. They should make every supporter of gun control move into a house in downtown atlanta and put a sign in their front yard that says "i do not own any guns".

[David88vert]

the whole point of this thread isnt to stop gun massacres, its to close LOOP HOLES IN THE SECURITY OF SELLING USED FIREARMS.

Or we can wait for straw purchases to start showing up in gun massacres and THEN we can talk about it :P

Cost vs benefit.
It will be extremely costly to upgrade systems (hardware and software), hire additional staff, etc. What is the benefit to the American people (where the money will have to come from)? Since they won't be any safer, why should they foot the bill?

[David88vert]

well Rahm Emmanuel in 2008 said that only the military should own weapons not private citizens. I cant find a clip of the video but i have seen it. He was the CHief of Staff (or on his way) at that point. Thats pretty high up.

I would say theres a small small group of people devoted to banning firearms outright, but a larger minority supports heavy regulation on them as a means to banning. But the overwhelming majority is against it at this point.

if it was REALLY on the Dems agenda they had 2 years to do it and didnt even take up legislation on gun control.

If you have a problem with national registry on firearms, i assume you dont buy any weapons anymore, becuase all new weapons are serialized. Eventually all weapons will belong to the master registry. I mean techincally any weapon kinda is on a master list because the way it works is

Manufacturer makes gun, issues serial number
Must keep records of all serial numbers and weapons issued for ATF
Guns are sold via Serial number to Dealer
Dealer has to keep records for (I THINK) up to 10 years.
ATF audits every 3-5 years


So, technically the ATF has access to your serial numbers, im just saying we should keep those records accurate when assigning them to owners.

Are you suggesting to not make it retroactive to all firearms? If you are, then you have to filter out guns not already in the system. If you want all firearms included, how are you planning on haqndling the transactional history of the "gun show" buy, where it is not already in the system?